Having attended both the general AGM and the 1:10 Off Road Section, my understandings of the pertinent events leading to this LiPo Saddle Pack debacle are as follows.
The original proposal as submitted by Chris Long did provide specific dimensions. The original proposal is still on the BRCA website if anyone cares to check. For Saddle packs the original proposal stated - Length: 71mm, Width: 47mm and Height: 30mm.
However, at the meeting this was rapidly dismissed as not being acceptable. The many reasons provided for this included that according to 1:10 Off Road Section Rule 25, it clearly states that only Electric Board homologation batteries would be acceptable at any sanctioned event. Further comment was made that this rule could not at this stage be considered for changing. The reason provided was that for this rule to be changed it should have been within a formalised proposal and to count as such it would have had to have been submitted prior to the AGM within the designated timescale.
In my experiences in many other formal meetings of various other well run and well organised organisations and establishments, if anyone submits a formal proposal within the designated timescale that is not going to be acceptable, it is returned to the proposer before the meeting providing them with the reasons for it’s non-acceptance, thereby allowing them to make an alternative proposal. This would allow a re-draft of the proposal to a format or of a detail that would be acceptable for consideration at the AGM. I do not feel that it should be left to the actual AGM meeting itself to advise the proposer then at that late stage, that their proposal, as submitted, is not admissible, particularly on some technical ground. Is this not one of the reasons of having the prescribed lead time for proposals? This could and more than likely would have taken the format of changing or circumventing the rigours of Rule 25.
To now have one of the Section Committee quite clearly and openly state,
An amendment proposal would have triggered a vote and a positive result would have constituted an AGM section supported change to the EB. This change would then go forward to the EB for adoption or otherwise by the other electric sections.
At what stage in the proceedings did any of the Section Committee advise the floor of this? I certainly cannot recollect it.
To now also quite glibly state as well, I now appreciate that this "process of making change" is not well understood, however, it can not be said that the opportunity to make change was unavailable to the membership at the AGM.
Surely any of the Section Committee, if they clearly wished for the wishes of the rank and file to be acted on, should with their greater comprehension and understanding and interpretation of the technicalities and procedures, have directed the members that bothered to attend to achieve what the majority in attendance wanted. That is unless there was some form of unknown hidden agenda.
I can most emphatically state that at no time was there any direction, help or guidance from any of the Section Committee as to how the process of making change could be achieved. Just read on this forum from quite a few of those that attended the Section meeting, they have all clearly stated and tried to explain, that the floor were very clearly and I would go so far as to say forcibly directed by the hierarchy that the dimension issue was not debatable.
Jim Spencer so often quotes,
Lastly THE BRCA is you lot, it's all of US.
I would like to believe that . . . . . . however in this instance it has certainly not been.
Could I respectively ask Jim, as the only senior hierarchal BRCA Committee Member to post on here, to offer us now, any advice or guidance as to how this debacle can be sorted out and a rapid closure put on it before it does untold and lasting damage to our sport?
|